Wed. October 24
The Election and the End of Rachel Maddow
The British philosopher Roger Scruton once made a brilliant observation: the paradox of effective politics, he wrote (and I’m paraphrasing) is that by focusing on politics we free ourselves from politics. That is, the point of politics is that by electing a group of people to fight over wars, budgets, and how we order our lives together, the rest of us are free to pursue other interests. We can go to movies, read books, fall in love. Scruton’s observation is similar to George Will praising low voter turnout, which he noted could be a sign that people are basically happy or at least have enough of the virtue of humility that they don’t expect heaven on earth.
However, in the last few years it’s become increasingly difficult to find spaces where politics are kept outside the door. Part of it is caused by what is called “the paradox of progress”–that the more our lives become comfortable and (relatively) pain free, the more we refuse to tolerate the smallest inconvenience. A hundred years ago a toothache was slow death and most families had children who had died young; these days people throw hissy fits if there’s a long line at the Apple store. And if there is a long line at the Apple store, or our Starbucks coffee is too hot and we get burned, then someone has to pay or get sued. And, of course, politicians need to get involved. Thus Mayor Bloomberg’s ban of the Big Gulp.
But perhaps the most obnoxious contributor to the political infiltration of everyday life is the political cable show. Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, and the rest of the talking heads need to fill an hour every day as well as get ratings, and that has increasingly meant conjuring up an air of crisis. Thus, everyday they breathlessly report that the politician they hate has just done something that will mean global warming, starving children, and post-nasal drip. The day after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, I was driving to a used record store when I heard Sean Hannity on the radio mention the word impeachment. The confetti from the Obama celebrations hadn’t even stopped falling and Hannity was gearing up for impeachment. Meanwhile, they are starting a suicide watch on Andrew Sullivan if Mitt Romney wins the election. Don’t these people ever think about anything other than politics?
Sadly, no. For them, politics has replaced God, and therefore all the nonpolitical things that involve the world God has made–and the creatures he made to inhabit it. One of my favorite books is On the Unseriousness of Human Affairs by the great Georgetown Jesuit James V. Schall. In it, Schall argues that we are truly closest to God when we have the humility to admit that in the end the political things that we obsess over in this life may not be that important. I’m not talking about abortion, or preventing war, or protecting women’s rights in repressive countries, or even passing sensible traffic laws, but rather the manic state that some journalists and political junkies get into where changing the tax rate from 35.6% to 34.7% is worth addressing and devoting over an hour of rabid TV shouting to only to be repeated the next day, and the day after.
In On the Unseriousness of Human Affairs, Fr. Schall argues that when we are dancing, making love, reading books or gardening, we are actually doing our most soulful and important work. Because these things reveal our acceptance of our limitations, and the limitations of our political aspirations. They say that in the end God is in charge, and that letting go and going to have a beer with friends is a vital acknowledgment of that. In one section of his book, Fr. Schall cites a story told by Plato. On a walk to a religious shrine in Crete, a soldier and statesman named Klinias talks with someone Plato identifies as the Athenian Stranger. The Athenian Stranger says that man is like a “plaything,” and that this is the best thing about us. Klinias, who in the modern world might be Rachel Maddow, is confused and put off by this comment. What do you mean man “is not the measure of all things”? Plato’s response: “But the fact is that in war there is not and will not be by nature either play, or again, an education that is at any time worthy of our discussion; yet this is what we assert is, at least for us, the most serious thing. Each person should spend the greatest and best part of his life in peace. What then is the correct way? One should live out one’s days playing at certain games–sacrificing, singing, and dancing.”
That’s what we should all do on November 7, no matter what the election result. And we should not return to Hannity or Maddow or Rush for a good, long time.
Related Articles
-
Career Yay! Princess Nay!
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor showed up on Sesame Street…
Read More > -
Is It Time to Forgive Chris Brown?
Maybe Oprah was wrong. Maybe when a man does something…
Read More > -
God, Sex, and the Universal Longing
How appropriate. I was finishing a great new book, Fill…
Read More >
Popular Articles
-
Hot Wives, Bitter Bloggers, and Social Media Faux Pas
Socrates said that the unexamined life was not worth living.…
Read more > -
What’s the Big Deal with Arrested Development?
For Arrested Development fans, the May 26 release of Season…
Read more > -
Political pundits do what they do, the rest of us do what we do. We can listen or not listen, agree or disagree. I don’t watch political programs slavishly but when I tune in I know what I am getting. I don’t see the problem.
The thrust of your argument is sadly undercut by the fact that you are paid to fill up an article in much the same way that Hannity is paid to fill up an hour. The only difference is, he is paid more.
Nice article though.
Without Rachel Maddow’s show, I would have never learned about the efforts to suppress voters’ rights, or how extreme Paul Ryan’s views on abortions were. Also, I am unnerved by the fact that while this post calls out Maddow, Hannity and Limbaugh, it is only Maddow who has her picture in the post or her name in the title. Yes, I hate that our current political atmosphere resembles a team sports culture, but this is a unique election year in which politics are *VERY* important, as a Mitt Romney presidency guarantees the overturn of Roe v. Wade and possibly a ban on most contraceptives and birth control (and if you look at his statements on the matter, that is *not* hyperbole or “liberal claptrap”).
If a Mitt Romney presidency would guarantee the overturn of Roe v. Wade he would win by a landslide. It won’t, however, nor a ban on contraceptives and birth control. Would never make it through Congress.
If supporting the unborns right to life and hating murder is extreme, and asking someone to show an Id is extreme, maybe hannity is right and the left really has become radical.
Thank you Jakey, I could not have stated my feels better. I do love Rachel Maddow, And sure I may be a bit biased, but her show is much more informative and more importantly honest than Rush and others. I can’t stand the hyperbolic pundants on fox or MSNBC. But there are a few out there that are worth listening to. Outside of NPR, I think Rachel and Chris Hayes are the best and so out of the league compared to their conservative and even liberal counterparts.
If your only response is to tease my spelling, just an FYI… I’m dyslexic. Get over it.
I don’t buy the equivalence, and I particularly don’t buy it as regards the actual complaint. It’s the Hannity’s of the world that screech and howl over a percentage point in policy. And they do so at the expense of other people’s lives. Those that care about real people ought not to be treated as doing the same work as professional bigots.
You say that we should do the things that we love, but the thing I love most of all is politics. I love the idea of sharing your opinions and having open discussion and compromise to help the American people. I don’t like where the political system is at right now, but I believe that it will get better. And hopefully I can eventually help make it better.
Pingback: First Links — 10.25.12 » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog
Jakey, your claims are complete nonsense. Show me one place where Mitt has said he would like to ban any form of contraception. Unless you are counting abortion as a for of contraception. He has said though that he is only against abortion when the circumstances are not rape/incest/life of the mother.
Even so, Bush was against abortion, and Roe vs. Wade is still in place after his 8 years.
Romney was directly asked a question in one of the debates, which, paraphrased, went “Would you sign an order to overturn Roe v. Wade, if it came to your desk, as President?” & he said (no paraphrase) “I’d be delighted to do so!” The next President is going to get the chance to appoint at least one (probably more than one) SC justice, thereby tipping the power on whether Roe v. Wade could be overturned. It’s quite logically clear, to anyone wanting to see, that this would be the beginning of the end for legal abortion in the country, as a whole, if Romney were President.
Not saying this is most important issue, but I can imagine for quite a lot of women, it is.
The idea that a Romney presidency means the overturn of Roe v Wade is hyperventilated hysterics. Unless you think that Romney will circumvent the law as Obama has. (Romney/Ryan have repeatedly said they will respect the law.) Roe v. Wade makes abortion a Constitutional issue, which some people think is judicial overreach. Overturning Roe v Wade would NOT make abortion illegal, just not a Constitutional right. So far, medical healthcare is not a constitutional right — so how can a medical procedure be? Some say healthcare should be a constitutional right. In any case, right now, not being a consitutional right does not make healthcare illegal. Same for abortion. No Roe v Wade does not make abortion illegal. Bottomline, Romney is a moderate. Does anyone really think otherwise? We need someone who can reach, work, see across the aisle. The last 4 years proves that Obama cannot. We cannot afford 4 more years of gridlock and finger-pointing, do-nothing failure.
Sally — Irrespective of whether because healthcare is not a constitutional right, & hence abortion cannot be termed illegal by a court because it is under “healthcare” (why would it not be under criminal ambit, if a pro-life judge thinks it is murder?), the effect of appointing pro-life judges, which would make plenty of pro-life groups re-litigate this upto the SC, which would mean overturn of legal abortion as the SC bench, by majority vote, would be conservative. It may have been judicial overreach at the time it was originally done (that’s not the issue here), but on whatever grounds its overturned, it would make it illegal, as a NATIONAL law. States could pass their own laws, but I don’t think anybody wants to live in a country where something as fundamental as what women can do with their own bodies is looked at differently in different states. Would be the beginning of the end for a united nation.
Pingback: When Pop Culture Tweets Back « Acculturated
In addition to those self-satisfying talking heads, there are also the sly column writers who name-drop in their teaser titles to gain readership that otherwise would not happen. Equally loathsome.
Yes, but not quite the absolute bottom, which belongs to cowardly anonymous comments.
Politics is a big part of everyday life and some take a great interest in it. Politics make libraries where you can borrow the books you mention in this article. They provide permits for cinemas to be built, for the roads you use to get to the cinema or the pavements. The world around you is supplied mainly by your taxes and who has those taxes, the politicians.
I can understand your frustration by the amount of programming about politics but they are easily avoidable. Just switch off or turn the channel. Some people watch a lot of programming about news and politics, some pick one or two shows but they choose. Your supercilious complaint makes no sense. Why not complain about all the religious channels?
And why put Rachel Maddow in your headline and a photo as well? She is one of the few pundits amongst many, that is reasonable, honest, informed and informative. Is she an easy target? If you want to write about people wailing about crisis after crisis, why not talk about Fox News more? In particular, reading your last paragraph, reminded me a lot of what Rachel Maddow does when she’s not working, you should do your homework
It’s all about money. Air America or Rachel Madow it doesn’t matter. A vehicle or a figurehead that spews what corporate mongers, or programers view as something the american public will consistently hold on to, religiously watch and digest as the truth then tell their friends to watch. Meanwhile subliminal ads are inserted selling you Starbucks coffee, the Wall Street Journal or the Smart Car. The day after the show to pick up a copy of the wall street Journal, head for Starbucks in your chokin smokin Yougo to discuss what you saw on TV. “HAVE NO FEAR ZARGON IS HERE” You are now a preprogrammed dolt that does and repeats everything you see on TV and read in the Wall Street Journal as the truth. Have you researched any of this on your own? This is opinion, written and produced as fact so your head full of mush never questions the validity of anything. Whats important doesn’t matter, this is all layed out for you so you don’t have to do anything but buy Starbuck’s and the Wall Street Journal drive your smart car and watch TV. You sir are an addict.
I agree with stonecoldcon – this is what pundits do. This article is like berating talk show hosts for spending too much time talking to people!
And I have to take umbrage as well with your choice of choosing Rachael Maddow as the only pundit named in your title and pictured in your post. Is it just because she’s a lesbian? If you want to pick out the most extreme example of overblown, hate-mongering, partisan punditry, look at Rush Limbaugh! At least Rachael is civil and uses *actual facts* to bolster her opinion, which is an increasing rarity in political discourse now.
Maddow uses “actual facts”? That’s funny, but I had not noticed that your comment was supposed to be sarcastic. “Actual facts”-Maddow! I like it, but it is probably uncivil to make fun if her that way. You probably shouldn’t do it.
Over the last year, the government borrowed approximately $2.5 million every minute. That’s the equivalent of 8,244 flat screen HDTVs it cannot afford.
Our national debt is more than $16 trillion.
That is how much the United States has borrowed, and how much we have to pay interest on. To put $16 trillion in perspective, our national debt is larger than the total economies of China, the United Kingdom, and Australia combined.
The real issue of this election is the economy! If our economy tanks, healthcare, talk show hosts and being cool, really won’t matter. Do your research and don’t rely one media outlet for your news.
Hmmm….I get your point that we may obsess too much over the small details of politics…but some of these activities that we’re supposed to be doing instead, like gardening or cooking or drinking beer…they’re just so much more…boring. I don’t make politics my God, but I like having something to get excited and passionate about, and politics is way more exciting than mundane everyday life…just my opinion.
“… politics is way more exciting than mundane everyday life…”
I feel sorry for you.
On the whole I agree. By the way, better even than Schall’s book is Johann Huizinga’s solid old Homo Ludens, which makes much the same point more incisively. Politics is necessary, but it’s by no means the most important thing–just a necessary evil. I agree with Neesley, too: so much of the manufactured hysteria is driven by money. Finally, you weren’t dropping names in your title–you were using an example, and the body of your essay rightly cited other examples from across the political spectrum.